> Now you’ve got to ship everything back to the seller, and then the seller has to ship the waste to their actual processor
That’s actually an interesting idea.
If it actually worked that way, there would be an amazingly high incentive for sellers to minimize packaging waste.
It would also have a side effect of making high-waste packaged goods much more expensive than low-waste packaged food, promoting the purchase of eco-friendly packaging.
I wonder if there’s a less radical way to implement these kind of market incentives.
>If it actually worked that way, there would be an amazingly high incentive for sellers to minimize packaging waste.
But why? Adding a nonsense convoluted disincentive is inane. Landfills are cheap and plentiful and filling them with plastic doesn't hurt anything (and can be billed to either supplier or consumer) If something is worth recycling the market will sort it.
Well if it was some sort of "bounty" that involves handling it the solution could be more logistically sane. No sense adding in needless shipping. Say that packaging comes with a N cost tax stamp deposit. If it doesn't wind up processed in an acceptable way then it is forfeit.
If anyone reprocesses it in an acceptable way (recycling to a valueable material, trash to steam) the manufacturer gets some portion of the value back and the recycler gets some just to ensure that they do the proper paperwork to ensure the system is working correctly.
A company can also be their own recycler to get a full refund.
That’s actually an interesting idea.
If it actually worked that way, there would be an amazingly high incentive for sellers to minimize packaging waste.
It would also have a side effect of making high-waste packaged goods much more expensive than low-waste packaged food, promoting the purchase of eco-friendly packaging.
I wonder if there’s a less radical way to implement these kind of market incentives.